N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R AYM OND D. YOW E LL, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R OB ER T AB B EY; HELEN HANKINS; DEPT OF TREASUR

Y, FIN M GM T SVC S; C B E GR O UP, INC .; JIM PITTS, De fe nda

nts,
a nd JAM ES C ONNELLEY; DENNIS JOUR N IGAN, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 12-16552

D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00518-R C J-VPC
M EM O R ANDUM *

R AYM OND D. YOW E LL, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R OB ER T AB B EY; HELEN HANKINS; DEPT OF TREASUR

Y, FIN M GM T No. 12-17158 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00518-R C J-VPC



# FIL ED
JUN 28 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.SVC S,

De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts,
a nd C B E GR OUP, INC .; JIM PITTS; JAM ES C ONNELLEY; DENNIS JOUR NIGAN, De fe nda

nts. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 13, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd VANC E, C h ie f Distric t Judge
. **

Fe de ra l De fe n d ants-Appe lla nts R obe rt Abbe y , He l e n Ha nkins, a nd the De pa rtm e nt of the Tre a sury

–Fina nc ia l M an a ge m e nt Se rvic e s (“ Tre a sury -FM S” )
a ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r e njoining the B ure a u of La nd M ana ge m e nt (“ B LM ” ) from

e nforc ing Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e R aym ond Yowe l l’ s gra z i ng de b t, a nd from the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs de ny i ng the ir m otions to dism iss a nd for

** The Honora

ble Sarah S. Va

nc e , C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion. 2re c o nside ra tion. Sta te De fe nda

nts-Appe l la

nts Ja m e s C onne lle y

and De nnis Journiga n a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the ir m o tion for sum m a ry judgm e nt. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1292(a)(1) and § 1291 (under the
c olla te ra l orde r doc trine ). Se eMitc he ll v

. Forsy th , 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). We
re ve rse . 1. The distric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion in re quiring B LM to withdra w its c e rtific ation of Yowe l l’ s de bt to Tre a s ury -FM S. A c ourt a b use s its disc re tion whe re it fa ils to identify

or a pply the c orre c t le ga l rule , whe re its fa ilure to m ake findings of fa c t

and c onc lusions of la

w pre c lude a

full unde rsta

nding of the c ourt’ s de c ision, or whe re its a

pplic ation of thec orre c t le ga l sta nda rd is illogic a l, im pla usible , or without support. Pime nte l v

. Dre y fus , 670 F.3d 1096, 1105 (9th C ir. 2012); Park

Vill. Apartme

nt Te nants Ass’n v . Mortime r How ard Trust , 636 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th C ir. 2011); Enforma N atural Produc ts, Inc
. , 362 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th C ir. 2004). The distric t c ourt’ s injunc tion suffe rs from a ll thre e proble m s. Spe c i fic a lly , the d istric t c o urt fa i le d to ide n tify and a pply the c orre c t sta

nda rd for granting a

n injunc tion. Se e W

inte r v . N atural Re sourc e s De fe nseC ounc il, Inc

. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); e Bay Inc . v . Me rc

Ex c hange , LLC , 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The distric t
c ourt fa ile d to m ake the findings of fa c t an d c onc lusions of la

w re quire d by

Fe de ra l 3R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure 52(a )(1)–(2) and 65, without whic h we c annot disc e rn the ba sis for thec ourt’ s de c ision. Se e Enforma N atural Produc ts, Inc
. , 362 F.3d a t 1212. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusions tha t Yowe ll ha d no pre -de priva tion he aring be fore B LM im

p ounde d a

nd sold his c attle , a

nd tha t Yowe ll wa s not a

ware of the im poundm e nt, c a

nnot form the ba sis for theinjunc tion. W e c onc lude , for the re a sons we hav e pre viously se t forth, tha

t B LM wa s not re quire d to providea pre -de priva

tion he aring. Se e K

lump v . Babbitt , No. 95-16109, 1997 W L 121193, *2 (9th C ir. M ay

17, 1997). Furtherm ore , Yowe ll pla inly wa s a w a re of the im poundm e nt be fore it ha

ppe ne d, a s e vide nc e d by

B LM ’ s notic e s to Yowe ll a nd Yowe ll’ s own e fforts to c o nte st B LM ’ s a c tions. 2. The distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing the Fe de ra l De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts’
m otion to dism

iss a n d m otion for re c onside ra tion. First, no ac tion unde r Biv e ns v . Six U nk now n Age nts of Fe de ral Bure au of N arc otic s , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), may lie
a ga inst fe de ra l a ge nc ie s like Tre a sury -FM S. Se e F D IC v . Me y e r , 510 U.S. 471, 484–86 (1994); J

ac h e tta v . Unite d State

s , 653 F.3d 898, 908 (9th C ir. 2011). Se c ond, no Biv e ns a c t i on m ay lie a ga inst fe de ra l offic ia ls for “ stric tly

4e nforc ing rule s a ga inst tre spa ss or c o nditions on gra z ing pe rm its.” W

ilk ie v . Robbins , 551 U.S. 537, 557 (2007). 1 Third, e ve n if Yowe l l c ould a sse rt Biv e n s c la im s a ga inst theindividual Fe de ra l De fe n d ants-Appe lla nts notwithsta

nding W ilk ie , the y are e ntitle d to qua lifie d im

m unity . Yowe ll doe s not tie any a lle ge dly unla wful be havior to the individual Fe de ra l De fe nda nts-Appe lla

n ts. Se e Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“ B e c a

use v i c arious lia

bility is ina pplic a ble to B iv e ns and § 1983 suits,
a pla intiff m

u st ple a d tha

t e a c h Gove rnm e nt-offic ia l de fe nda nt, through the offic ia l’ s own individua

l a c tions, ha s viola

te d the C onstitution.” ). M o re proble m atic , Yowe ll fa ils to show tha t the Fe d e ra l De fe nda

nts-Appe lla

nts c a use d him to be de prive d of a

c le arly e sta blishe d fe de ra l right. Se e Van Strum v . Law n , 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th C ir. 1991). As Yowe l l c onc e de s, the Fe de ra l De fe ndantsAppe l la n ts we re following B LM re gula tions whe n

the y se iz e d a nd sold his c attle , and Tre a sury -FM S re gula tions whe n the y

c e rtifie d his graz ing de bt. No c ourt ha s he ld tha t thosere gula

tions viola

te due proc e ss. Thus, it c annot be sa id tha t “ e ve ry
re a s ona ble offic ia l would [ha

v e unde rstood] tha

t what he is doing viola

te s ” any

1 The W e ste rn Shoshone Tribe ’ s a b origina l titleto the la

nds a t issuein this c a se have long be e n se ttle d. S e e Unite d State

s v . Dann , 470 U.S. 39, 41–42 (1985); Unite d State

s v . Dann , 873 F.2d 1189, 1194–1200 (9th Cir. 1989). The Unite d State s now holds title

to, a nd B LM now m ana ge s, thosela nds. 5c le arly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l right. Re ic hlev . How ards , 132 S. C t. 2088, 2090 (2012) (quota tion m arks om itte d) (a lte ra tion in Re ic h le ). 3. The distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing the State De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts’
m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt. As a

n initia l m atte r, the State De fe ndantsAppe l la n ts a re e l igible for qua l ifie d im m unity be c a use the ir a c t ions we re disc re tiona

ry , not m iniste ria l, unde r a pplic a ble sta t e la w. Se e Ne v. R e v. Stat. § 565.130(1). Qualifie d im m unity a pplie s he re be c a

use Yowe ll fa i ls to e sta

blish that the State De fe nda

nts-Appe lla

nts e ithe r fa ile d to follow the a pplic a ble sta te la w, whic h the re by

c a use d him to be de p rive d of a c le arly e s ta blishe d fe de ra l right, or tha t the sta te la wis itse lf “ pate ntly

viola tive of funda

m e nta l c onstitutiona

l princ iple s.” C

m ty . House

, Inc . v . C ity of Boise , Idaho , 623 F.3d 945, 965 (9th C ir. 2010). To the c ontra

ry , the State De fe nda

nts-Appe lla

n ts followe d the a

pplic a ble bran d inspe c tion proc e dure s a nd c om m unic ate d with Yowe ll a s those proc e dure s
and B LM ’ s re gula

tions re quire d; nothing obliga te d the De fe nda

nts to dispute B LM ’ s im

p oundm e nt a

nd sa le of Yowe ll’ s c attle . No c ourt, m ore ove r, ha s
c onc lude d tha

t Ne va da ’ s bra

nd inspe c tion proc e dure s viola te fe de ra l la

w. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs de ny ing the Fe de ra l De fe ndantsAppe l la n ts’ m o t ions to dism

iss a nd for re c onside ra tion, a s we l l a s the Stat e De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts’ m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt, a

re RE V E RSE D . The 6distric t c o urt’ s injunc tion is V ACAT E D
. The c a se is RE M ANDE D for furthe r

proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this disposition.

7